## Facts

- Employees of the Post Office left an open manhole on a public street, covered only by a tent and illuminated by paraffin lamps.
- Two young boys discovered the site, entered the tent, and climbed into the manhole.
- During their actions, one of the boys accidentally knocked over a paraffin lamp, causing an explosion that resulted in severe burns.
- The pursuer sought damages for negligence, alleging that the harm was the result of the defendant’s breach of duty.
- The Scottish Court of Sessions initially denied damages, finding the precise manner of injury not reasonably foreseeable.
- The decision was appealed to the Privy Council.

## Issues

1. Whether liability in negligence requires foreseeability of the precise manner in which harm occurs, or only the general type or kind of harm.
2. Whether the explosion and resulting burns were within the scope of foreseeable injury created by leaving paraffin lamps unattended at an open manhole.

## Decision

- The Privy Council allowed the appeal and held in favour of the claimant.
- It determined that liability in negligence exists where the general type of harm is foreseeable, even if the specific manner or extent is not.
- The Court found that it was reasonably foreseeable that the unattended paraffin lamps posed a risk of burns, regardless of the particular mechanics of the explosion.
- The denial of damages by the lower court, based on unforeseeability of the precise accident, was overturned.

## Legal Principles

- In negligence, the requirement for foreseeability concerns the general type or kind of damage, not the precise sequence of events leading to it.
- Liability is established if harm of a foreseeable character arises, even if caused by an unforeseeable or unusual mechanism.
- The principle clarified that foreseeability relates to the category of injury rather than its manner or extent.
- This principle aligns with the reasoning in The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] AC 388 regarding remoteness, but further clarifies that the exact chain of events need not be foreseeable.
- The case distinguished itself from positions suggesting foreseeability of the manner of injury is required, as criticized in Crossley v Rawlinson [1981] 1 WLR 369.
- Later applied in cases such as Jolley v Sutton LBC [2000] 1 WLR 1082 and Bradford v Robinson Rentals Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 267.

## Conclusion

Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963] AC 837 established that in negligence the precise manner in which damage is caused does not need to be foreseeable, provided the general type of harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct. This principle has become fundamental in assessing remoteness and liability in negligence.
